Hi 2RM, no it is essentially the same thing, except the communists had a practical approach to achieve the same ideal.
Firstly, the communists may have focused on the means of production, whereas you seem to focus on money. The communists correctly understood that money of itself has no intrinsic value, is both created and destroyed in various activities. Your ideal suggests that you are one of those who think all the money on the planet is a finite set amount (as if it was found under a bush somewhere by cavemen, and in circulation ever since). It is the means of production that represents real wealth. And some people are far better at using it to generate wealth than others. For example, farmland can produce great wealth, if managed well, and none, if managed poorly.
Secondly, the communists had the commune (or State, in the case of Russia, China, etc) own the assets rather than split them up evenly, amongst the people, on the theoretical understanding that the state or commune held it all on behalf of the people. This is a practical approach, given the above.
The problem is that the great equalisation (whether money or means of production) leads to a massive loss of production, where it is put into hands of people who either don’t know how to use it, or don’t care, or both. To take the farmland example, I remember a statistic from the late 1980s that USSR had 150 million farmers, yet was the world’s biggest importer of agricultural produce, yet the USA (with 50 million farmers) was the world’s biggest exporter of agricultural produce.
Likewise if you take all the money from the wealthy people in the world, you will deprive them of the ability to generate things that people need. If you give it to the poorest, they will not use it, or even know how to use it, to generate things that people need. Mass starvation is the likely result. You may consider communism to be different from the approach that you describe, but communism is just a practical approach to carry out your idea.
I think you mean well, and your heart is in the right place, by the way.